#123movies #fmovies #putlocker #gomovies #solarmovie #soap2day Watch Full Movie Online Free – Following the murder of her father by hired hand Tom Chaney, 14-year-old farm girl Mattie Ross sets out to capture the killer. To aid her, she hires the toughest U.S. marshal she can find, a man with “true grit,” Reuben J. “Rooster” Cogburn. Mattie insists on accompanying Cogburn, whose drinking, sloth, and generally reprobate character do not augment her faith in him. Against his wishes, she joins him in his trek into the Indian Nations in search of Chaney. They are joined by Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, who wants Chaney for his own purposes. The unlikely trio find danger and surprises on the journey, and each has his or her “grit” tested.
Plot: Following the murder of her father by a hired hand, a 14-year-old farm girl sets out to capture the killer. To aid her, she hires the toughest U.S. Marshal she can find—a man with ‘true grit’—Reuben J. ‘Rooster’ Cogburn.
Smart Tags: #revisionist_western #reference_to_new_mexico #death_by_hanging #long_drop_hanging #spanking_threat #public_hanging #latrine #execution_by_hanging #1870s #dragged_by_a_horse #spanking #public_execution #coffin #based_on_novel #rooster_cogburn_character #cole_younger #cole_younger_character #text_based_poster #kicked_in_the_butt #horseback_riding #19th_century
|7.6/10 Votes: 313,101|
|7.3 Votes: 3923 Popularity: 15.122|
Some people have said that this film followed the book better than the original one with John Wayne. I have not read the book but I must say that I did not feel that there was that much difference between the John Wayne version and this one. Sure, there was a difference in the details but the main elements was pretty much the same. There was an epilogue on the end which was a tad more sad, but certainly not misplaced, than in the original film.
I have to say that the film it was very good. Jeff Bridges was doing an excellent interpretation of Rooster Gogburn. I found him to be quite “John Wayne like” in this film which is perhaps why I liked it so much.
Over their storied career, the Coen Brothers have made some of the most original, most iconoclastic, and most critically-acclaimed films of all time. They’ve tackled adaptations (No Country for Old Men, O Brother, Where Art Thou?) and remakes (The Ladykillers) before, of course, but even these films have borne the brothers’ unmistakable mark of originality, their skewed vision of the world, and their cynical, sarcastic sense of humor.
What, then, to make of True Grit?
It’s termed a re-adaptation of the original Charles Portis novel, a “re-imagining,” in the parlance of our time. One is hardly able to discuss the film without the spectre of John Wayne, however: the best-known adaptation of the book was one of the film legend’s definitive roles, one of those cultural touchstones that rarely if ever are engineered. Discussion of that film invariably centers on Wayne and his performance: a washed-up, forgotten cowpoke that seemed tailor-made for Wayne to draw on his position at the time. A direct predecessor of Mickey Rourke and The Wrestler.
I’ll admit that it was the Coens’ pedigree that moved me to see this film. I’ve by nature little interest in Westerns, but despite producing a few lesser films (I’m looking at you, Burn After Reading), the Coens’ sheer talent, along with the casting of Jeff Bridges in the John Wayne role, had me intrigued.
The story is simple and straightforward: The father of young Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) is murdered by a two-bit criminal (Josh Brolin), and she takes it upon herself to see him brought to justice. To that end, she hires a reputedly ferocious US Marshal named Rueben “Rooster” Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), while a prideful Texas Ranger (Matt Damon) tags along, hoping to bring the perpetrator to justice for a big reward.
And that’s it, really. Completely absent is the trademark Coen plotting, convoluted subplots that twist and turn over onto themselves as though the script were one enormous Möbius strip (Möbius script?). Gone are the defiance of genre definitions, the satirical take on stories, the feeling of the brothers Coen peering through the camera lens at their subjects as though they’re studying specimens in a jar. This is straightforward filmmaking, telling a simple tale with all the incredible talent and creative power the Coens command.
So what’s not missing, then, are the richness of character, impeccable performances, beautiful cinematography and arresting score that are the other hallmarks of a Coen film. Attention is naturally centered on Jeff Bridges, having the audacity to take on one of the defining performances of one of the most famous actors ever. Bridges doesn’t attempt to mimic Wayne. He crawls into this character and wears him like a suit. A hairy, shaggy, smelly suit. But Bridges inverts the typical presentation of such a character: instead of offering the audience with a cold, unfeeling badass whose heart is gradually thawed by the presence of a precocious youngster, this Cogburn is introduced as a shiftless layabout with a reputation who seems to have all but given up on such activities in favor of sleeping and boozing, the events of the film conspiring to scrape away that useless crust to reveal the force of nature beneath. Matt Damon, an actor who’s never been in a Coens film before but seems as though he should have, also offers a great performance as the proud and buffoonish Texas Ranger LeBeouf, as do Barry Pepper and Josh Brolin in their short but effective appearances as heavies.
But the yeoman’s work lies not on Bridges’ grimy, slouched shoulders. Instead, our focus is on fourteen-year-old Mattie Ross, and the performance given by fourteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld is, in short, one-of-if-not-the finest performance I’ve seen in quite a long time. Not content with giving such an incredible performance as a young teenager, this is, to boot, Steinfeld’s first film performance. Steinfeld’s Mattie Ross is smart, wily, mature, childish, scared, brave, and a force of nature in her own right. She has been wronged, she will see that wrong redressed, and nothing will stand in her way. An early scene in which she negotiates with a trader for horses and money is not only hilarious but revealing, one of the best character introductions in film history.
Such an unexpectedly straightforward film from the Coens deserves an equally straightforward judgment: I truly loved this film. There is so much greatness contained within it, from the powerhouse performances of Bridges and Steinfeld to the dark, touching, hilarious script, to Roger Deakins’ breathtaking cinematography, to Carter Burwell’s haunting score comprised of reorchestrations of classic hymns. It’s one of the most perfect films I’ve ever seen. This is the second fantastic remake I’ve seen this year, the second to eclipse the original (the first being the superlative Let Me In). If you’re wondering whether or not to see this film, wait no longer: go immediately to your nearest theater and buy a ticket. Speaking for myself: I can’t wait to see it again.
Get the comparisons out of the way, then give the film its due.
Let’s get the comparisons with Henry Hathaway’s version of the Charles Portis novel out of the way. The Coen Brothers certainly knew that, however much they want to ‘go back to the source material,’ their film would play against Hathaway’s version.
The Hathaway version, while tampering with details from the Portis original, remains strikingly true to its story and theme. This is most clear in the dialog – the decision not to tamper with Portis’ language was decisive for the making of that film. The Coens’ tampering with the novel is more subtle than Hathaway’s film, but no less an interpretation.
Approaching the characters and composition of the Coens’ version without reference to the Hathaway film apparently proved impossible. For instance, the shoot-out at the dug-out cabin was re-written for a night-scene, but the camera angles remain pretty much the high-elevation shots Lucien Ballard provided Hathaway, inter-cut with full body shots of people getting wounded and horses running (etc.)also similar to Ballard’s.
Two performance stand out as striking examples of reference to the original film. Dakin Matthews seems to struggle mightily not to recreate Strother Martin’s interpretation of the horse-trader Stonehill – and fails. Apparently Martin had the character down pat and there’s nothing but to reproduce his interpretation. Far more to the point is Barry Pepper’s interpretation of the desperate outlaw chief, Ned Pepper – it is pure Robert Duvall. Pepper can only match Duvall’s self-aware determination – and he does – but he can’t surpass it; nor can he find another interpretation to set off against Duvall’s.
As for the Coens’ own re-interpretation of the Portis novel, what was most noticeable to me were the minor points simply dropped out of the story telling. The most irritating to me were a pair of lapses that are interconnected and combine to make an important point about the characters. 1. We never get to see Mattie tell Rooster that Chaney has linked up with Ned Pepper (later Rooster does remark the fact, but how did he learn of it?); 2 We don’t get to hear Rooster’s remarking how he shot Pepper through the upper lip (because he was aiming at the lower lip). These two incidents combine to let the audience know that Cogburn’s hidden agenda on the Chaney hunt is really Ned Pepper, he and Pepper have something of a feud going on – which information fills out the background detail for their final shoot-out. Except here we don’t have that connection.
Finally, the whole Mattie – Rooster issue: many critics are saying that Mattie is more at the center here than in the Hathaway picture, which focused attention on John Wayne’s Cogburn. Not true. When we add up screen time and lines of dialog, we discover that Mattie not only has as much time and dialog in the Hathaway film but it is in much the same proportion to Cogburn’s as in this one. If most remember the Hathaway film as a ‘John Wayne film,’ that is due simply to Wayne’s bravura performance.
Well, enough of the comparisons. Does the Coens’ version measure up as film worth seeing on its own accord? Yes; we are presented here with a beautiful, frightening, amusing piece of ‘Americana.’ There are scenes approaching dream-like states, as in the meeting with the bear-man, and during Rooster’s desperate drive to get Mattie to a doctor. Hailee Steinfeld is quite engaging, and Matt Damon develops an intriguing complexity that makes one wish he had more screen-time. Bridges’ performance is the most problematic – Bridges plays Cogburn as a a kind of whimsical brute – as he rambles on with his life-story on the trail, we get the gnawing sense that, if we were not along for a dangerous manhunt and dependent on his abilities as a master man-hunter, Cogburn would be someone we would not like to know. This develops a distance between the audience and Cogburn that is actually rather on par for the Coens – there are no ‘heros’ in the Coen universe.
Perhaps that’s a good thing here. Mattie in her experiences with the wild men of the old west has encountered something larger than her life on the farm could ever get her. These are men who make their own laws and are not bound to statutory codes or biblical decrees, and adapt their own law to the wilds of the frontier that surrounds them. Mattie is a confirmed church-goer with a good lawyer, and if she weren’t so determined on her revenge, she would actually be impossibly small-minded and dull. This is a subtext to the novel that both films attempt to convey, but neither quite captures, because it’s difficult for any film maker to admit that the central character of the story is the least interesting.
The age of such wild-men has passed. It is not that wild-men do not exist – wild-men show up quite frequently in Coen Brothers’ films in contemporary settings – but now they are corrupted by moving outside the law and outside the commonplace, they grow sick and psychopathic. The killer in “Fargo” feeding the partner he’s killed to a wood-chipper is as wild as one could get, but he is no longer larger than life, and evokes only the sickness at the heart of modernity, not any adaptation one would want to live with.
We look back at historical moments like those of the Old West because anything seemed possible to them, whereas very little is possible for us. But that might simply be a wishful delusion – and the Coens’ clear suspicion that it is really determines the limits of what they accomplish here. They don’t present the West as ‘it really was,’ nor do they present what we want from it, rather they present a disappointment with it. Rooster Cogburn is indeed ‘larger than life,’ but we wouldn’t want to spend any more time with him than we do.
Surprisingly un-Hollywood. Unsurprisingly brilliant.
The least “Coen” of all of the Coens films is also one of their finest. It has a few Coen inflections to it (Damon’s twang of a voice, a few random mustached characters crossing paths with our heroes) but for the most part it’s a lot more straight forward and less humored. Surprisingly this doesn’t detract from the film at all, which is a riveting character journey in classic old school Hollywood fashion. And while generally “old school Hollywood fashion” would be something I would cringe and run away from, the Coens make it enjoyable, emotional and breathtaking. The technical qualities are all astounding; fantastic costumes, a beautiful score and some of the most exquisite cinematography I have ever seen, courtesy of the always reliable Roger Deakins. It’s such an entertaining film, with some emotional power that resonates afterwards. There’s a lot of twists that I didn’t see it taking and none of the characters ended up being what I initially expected them to be. There’s a real lack of obvious arcs for these people and that was a nice surprise. The Coens do what they can to avoid Hollywood conventions in what is, at it’s core, a very Hollywood film.
Above all else, the film is a character piece and what a wonderful one it is. Unsurprisingly, these people are written very intelligently, given lots of depth and room to grow and surprise. There’s a constant battle over what grit truly means and over the course of the film the balance shifts back and forth over which of the three has the truest grit. From the very opening, we see that Mattie Ross has a whole mess of it, this headstrong girl who won’t back down to anyone, despite her small stature. Hailee Steinfeld is remarkable here, an actor with talent well beyond her years. She’s entirely convincing, taking a character that could have been this annoying little brat and making her simultaneously strong, whip smart, endearing and adorable. I enjoyed watching her in every second. Jeff Bridges was different than I had expected, but I love his arc throughout the film. Maddie goes to him because she believes he has the most grit of all and that he is the right choice for her, but as the journey goes on she doubts her decision and Rooster Cogburn plays with our perception of him quite a few times. Bridges was my least favorite of the three, performance-wise, but that’s not a huge slant given how highly I thought of the other two. Matt Damon gets arguably the most interesting role, a character who is detestable when we first meet him and then has the large task of making us realize that he just may have the truest grit of all. LaBoeuf is a silly man who thinks too highly of himself, but as the film progresses it becomes very hard not to care for him. He’s a good man at his heart, as are Maddie and Rooster, and it makes it easy to root for all three of them to come out of this alright.
This is a film that I enjoyed even more than I thought I would, a Coen film in the most un-Coen of ways (which was a nice change of pace given that their previous effort, A Serious Man, is probably the most Coen film out there). I enjoyed living with these characters very much and wish that there had been more time to just be with them on their journey. The final confrontation with the men they are hunting is turns suspenseful, surprising and a little too short-lived. I didn’t much care for the epilogue, but with the wildly entertaining journey that came before it, I can’t fault the film that strongly for it. It’s a real cinematic piece, surprisingly Hollywood for the Coens, but it doesn’t fall into a lot of the traps that it could have. In fact, it does the opposite, jumping into holes where it could become clichéd and sentimental and then digging it’s way out, surprising at every turn. I like that the story doesn’t quite end after the basic plot is resolved, because it’s not about hunting down the man that killed Maddie’s father and hoping to bring him to justice. It’s about so much more. It’s about these characters and finding out who they really are when it all comes down to it.
Original Language en
Runtime 1 hr 50 min (110 min)
Genre Drama, Western
Director Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
Writer Joel Coen (screenplay), Ethan Coen (screenplay), Charles Portis (novel)
Actors Jeff Bridges, Hailee Steinfeld, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin
Awards Nominated for 10 Oscars. Another 37 wins & 159 nominations.
Production Company Scott Rudin Productions, Mike Zoss Productions
Sound Mix SDDS, DTS, Dolby Digital
Aspect Ratio 2.35 : 1
Camera Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses, Arriflex 235, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses, Arriflex 535B, Zeiss Master Prime Lenses
Laboratory DeLuxe, Hollywood (CA), USA, EFILM Digital Laboratories, Hollywood (CA), USA (digital intermediate) (dailies)
Film Length 3,013 m (Sweden), 3,043 m (Portugal)
Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 100T 5212, Vision2 200T 5217, Vision3 500T 5219)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format), Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (anamorphic) (Kodak Vision 2383), D-Cinema